The emergence of the most advanced day-to-day technologies in the military centers of the world has transformed the methods of conflict among the nations before and more than anywhere. In the meantime, the increasing importance of information and its underlying role in the life of the countries has changed the military intentions in the wars so that, unlike the past, the goal is not to eliminate traditional weapons and the manpower of the enemy, whose destruction with the use of new methods. In this way, the information age, along with its advanced technology, has led to a profound transformation in terms of such as weapons, goals, tactics, warfare, and so on. In recent years, the automation of the domestic infrastructure of some countries in the military, political and security sectors has dramatically accelerated, as advances in information networks have provided new opportunities for lower costs and more efficiency.
The space for policy and cyber interaction is considered to be the most recent and most important area of interest among policy and international experts in the theoretical and practical field. Neglecting it can cause serious and unpredictable damage to countries. The title has the title of the most important actress in the field of international relations. Today, “cyber security” is spoken in the field of international relations and politics. Real space cyberspace is a new field for impact and as a result of friendship, cooperation, competition, hostility and even war between countries and other actors. These cases clearly show that the Internet and cyberspace have provided a new field for politics, a space in which individuals, groups and governments are acting and policy makers. In the field of international relations, under the influence of the realism tradition, international issues are divided into very important issues such as security and less important issues, such as economic issues. Some experts believe that because of the importance of cyberspace, cyber security should be considered as one of the most important, critical, security or policy issues.
In the space of “Cyber Security” as a major new issue in the field of politics and international relations, as in other areas of politics, “values” and “interests” by different actors such as governments, organizations and Governmental and nongovernmental actors, and even people who produce, distribute and consume. In fact, unlike in the past, cyber security has placed new actors alongside governments as the most important actors in international relations, which are sometimes more capable and successful in the Internet. Anyway, apart from all the benefits and benefits of the Internet, the fact is that the Internet has provided “a new war space” called “cyber warfare”. In this type of war, countries and other actors use the Internet to spy, sabotage, and create insurrections, revolutions and even the destruction of military installations and vital centers of the other side.
Of course, the Internet has created a new space for “cooperation” and “interaction” between countries. In this regard, the Internet has made the relationship between all actors, including governments, individuals, organizations, and institutions, cheap and comfortable, due to its high speed and precision. As a result, the conditions for collaboration and engagement have been more interesting than ever before. While countries and other actors are aware of the need for widespread international cooperation on the Internet, they know that cyberspace has created a new area of international cooperation.
Finally, a new atmosphere in the international arena is formed that cannot be analyzed based on previous theories, approaches, and levels. In fact, the content and philosophy of the new space, called cyberspace, is very different from the past. In this new space, new types of friendship, cooperation, rivalry, hostility and war have been created alongside past patterns. Meanwhile, various and varied actors have been added to traditional actors that are very vague and unpredictable. Consequently, these conditions must emphasize new ideas, approaches, and perspectives that are much more flexible and open to the past.
Therefore, the cyber space has created new conditions in which issues of international relations are presented in a different way, resulting in a new form of policy called cyber security which has particular implications in the field of national and international security. Accordingly, in general, it can be said that “security policy” has a different meaning from what it has been so far, which includes two fundamental principles. On the one hand, political planners, diplomats, such as lawyers and intellectuals, have to come up with a collective agenda in order to find a place for subtle and supranational actors in politics and the administration of society. On the other hand, the global arena will represent new areas where governments alone are not role-play, in other words, “non-governmental”. So, while identifying the realm of government influence, a particular kind of problem arises when finding the right solution for them is not necessarily the responsibility of the government. Understanding and accepting this separation are important consideration in the security equations. Accordingly, a new curriculum is being developed, the nature of which is not only the elimination of threats, but also the creation of opportunities and the fulfillment of requirements that respect the capabilities of a political system. In this framework, new think tanks in the field of security studies are divided into two state-centered and non-government approaches, thus defining and identifying new actors in the national security equation, which has previously been for analysts they did not much matter. As the development of national security studies has progressed, the category of “threats” has also evolved, and we are turning to attention to new threats that are mostly non-governmental, and in contrast to the Cold War, in the two “national” and “supra” have spaces of the national government.
In addition, Iran’s national security considerations have been subject to various developments; in summary, the evolution of “outward-to-introspection” from the “ideological approach and pure commitment to more realism”, from the “Ummah-axis to Iran-centered” from “simplicity to complexity”, and from the “Threat to Threat – Opportunity in the International System”. In these developments, we are paying more attention to the need for a balance between the implications and limitations of cyber security and national security considerations.
Russia Says U.S. Trains Jihadists to Do Chemical Attacks Blamed Against Assad
On March 17th, Russia’s Minister of Defense (equivalent to America’s Secretary of Defense) announced, through Russian General Staff spokesman General Sergey Rudskoy: “We have reliable information at our disposal that US instructors have trained a number of militant groups in the vicinity of the town of At-Tanf, to stage provocations involving chemical warfare agents in southern Syria. Early in March, the saboteur groups were deployed to the southern de-escalation zone to the city of Deraa, where the units of the so-called Free Syrian Army are stationed. They are preparing a series of chemical munitions explosions. This fact will be used to blame the government forces. The components to produce chemical munitions have been already delivered to the southern de-escalation zone under the guise of humanitarian convoys of a number of NGOs.”
He also said:
“The provocations will be used as a pretext by the United States and its allies to launch strikes on military and government infrastructure in Syria. We’re registering the signs of the preparations for the possible strikes. Strike groups of the cruise missile carriers have been formed in the east of the Mediterranean Sea, Persian Gulf and Red Sea.”
He went on to add that in the most jihadist-friendly province, Idlib, another such “false flag” attack is being prepared by Al Qaeda in Syria, called there, “Al-Nusra Front terrorist group, in coordination with the White Helmets,” which is a group financed by the U.S. and UK Governments to rescue victims of bombings by Syria’s Government and its ally Russia.
This would hardly be the first example of such attacks. For example, on 14 January 2014, MIT’s Theodore Postol and the former U.N. Weapons Inspector Richard Lloyd co-authored a detailed technical study and analysis, regarding “the Damascus Nerve Agent Attack of August 21, 2013” (which was the most-famous sarin-attack, in East Ghouta), saying that “the US Government’s Interpretation of the Technical Intelligence It Gathered Prior to and After the August 21 Attack CANNOT POSSIBLY BE CORRECT,” and documenting that the rocket had actually — and clearly — been fired from an area that even the U.S. Government’s own maps showed to be under the control of the ‘rebels’, whom the U.S. Government supported, and definitely not of the Syrian Government, whom those ‘rebels’ were trying to overthrow. (That was the incident in which U.S. President Barack Obama announced to the world his “red line” and then said that the Government headed by Bashar al-Assad had crossed it and that this justified a U.S. invasion, but Seymour Hersh said that it had become blocked by the UK/s intelligence lab at Porton Down, by their finding that the sarin which had been used in this attack wasn’t of a type that the Syrian Government had in its arsenals.) There have been several such “false-flag” attacks, in order to get the public to support invading Syria. However, the main way that the U.S. and its allies try to overthrow Assad and his Government is to arm and protect Al Qaeda in Syria, which leads the various jihadist groups there (other than ISIS).
From Radical Ecology to Ecoterrorism
The schools of thought of contemporary eco-terrorism are many, but those that use an antagonist theoretical-practical approach can be identified in deep ecology, feminist ecology, Marxist ecology, primitivism, degrowth ecology, the Slow Food movement, ecology, animalism (which together with vegetarianism is a logical consequence of radical ecology) and, finally, eco-terrorism. In this sense – beyond the often demagogic rhetoric – eco-terrorism does not differ from the above-mentioned schools of thought because of its ethical-philosophical assumptions but rather by the operative procedures through which its antagonism is carried out. Therefore, an ideological community exists, whether implicit or explicit, in the main schools of thoughts of ecology and eco-terrorism. These schools of thought, however, can be associated with the idea of radical ecology.
Definition of radical ecology
While continuing to take the complexity of current ecology into account, the expression “radical” is used to indicate extremely antagonist ecology, from Pinochot’s utilitarian conservationism, which was deeply anthropocentric and aimed to rationalize the use of nature toward a lasting economic exploitation, to Haeckel’s neo-Darwinian approach, Tanskey’s view, Lotka’s trophic-network ecology, and finally, Odum’s thermodynamic approach. Firstly, radical ecology comprises the holistic preservationism of Thoreau, Emerson, and Leopold, ecofeminism, political ecology, deep ecology, primitivism, social ecology, the degrowth movement, the Slow Food movement, eco-regionalism, animalism, and eco-terrorism. Secondly, although the list of the organizations is not complete, it is important to underline that the several “-isms” do not exclude the possibility of profitable contaminations among the different schools of thought. Thirdly, the epistemological, political and philosophical features shared by the above-mentioned schools of thought can be identified as follows:
- they all support a structural modification of the current economic system and are against the supranational institutions that control global capitalism, in particular, the IMF, the WTO, and the World Bank;
- they are in favor of the anti-globalization movement, and know its limits and potentials;
- they share an eco-centric, bio-centric, anti-anthropocentric, holistic and sometimes organicistic perception of natural reality;
- they are against a mechanistic vision of reality such as Bacon’s and Descartes’, and are in favor of legal extensionism;
- they support a relevant extension of representative democracy or a radical exceeding of it in favor of an anarchic, neo-tribal society, or a participatory democracy;
- they share and develop apocalyptical and radical scenes of current society’s environmental and economic condition;
- they advocate a change in the ethic of western civilization through an eco-pacifist reorientation carried out by counter-information;
- they are against military institutions and share a typical interpretation of irenic pacifism;
- they are against the use of biotechnologies in agriculture and the civil and military use of nuclear energy;
- several members of radical ecology share a new interpretation of nature according to neo-romantic or oriental philosophies (such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and Zen philosophy);
- many scholars and activists belonging to radical ecology embrace animalistic and vegetarian views which they deem deeply coherent with an ecocentric vision of nature.
- Finally, several exponents of radical ecology refer to 1968 culture, and to underground American and tribal cultures.
In short, regarding the operative procedures carried out by the several schools of thought or radical ecology, we should point out the difference between non-violent and terroristic ones. There are three levels of antagonist procedure: a) non-violent practice strictly antagonist toward political and legal institutions; b) non-violent practice with an entryist political logic toward national and supranational political institutions; c) publically terroristic practice. We should, nevertheless, underline the differences between positions a) and b) both of which are well-organized and opposing: the first clearly condemns the use of terroristic procedures, the second supports terrorist procedures – but without putting them into practice – and is therefore ambiguous.
The historical predecessors of radical ecology
According to Livorsi, the genesis of radical ecology can be easily traced from a historical point of view to the philosophical and religious interpretation of Bachofen and the Marxist psychoanalysis of Reich as well. The author of the “Canticle of the Sun” (“Cantico del Frate Sole”) not only asserts the sanctification of the world by God – in other words, the sun, the moon, and the animal world – but also refers to Mother Earth, anticipating the modern concept of “Gaia” . Moreover the heterodox pantheism of Saint Francis implies a brotherhood between human beings and creatures according to an ecocentric and egalitarian view. The French philosopher Rousseau, in his “Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men” (“Discours sur l’origine et les fondements de l’inégalité parmi les homes”), emphasized the goodness of the state of nature and the existential authenticity of the human being in this pre-civilized context, while condemning in the meantime private property and therefore civilization determined by technique. Moreover, unlike civilized society, tribal society conducted an ecocentric, egalitarian and communal style of life. Bachofen, in his reinterpretation of the history of civilization, emphasized the existence of a gynocratic, anti-patriarchal view in pre-Achaean society in which there was no private life, there was sexual freedom, nature was accepted as a living organism, and above all, the modus vivendi was built on egalitarian pacifism.
In short, regarding Reich, the rise of patriarchy brought about the triumph of capitalism, the closed family, and sexual repression. The natural and erotic man who struggles for a libertarian socialism has reemerged only rarely in history, such as in the Paris Commune in 1871, for example.
Definition of Terrorism and Eco-Terrorism
According to Pisano, terrorism can be defined as a non-conventional form of conflict because it lies outside both democratic, organized and civil dispute and the traditional battlefield of war regulated by international law. Terrorism is characterized by three elements: a) physical and psychic criminal violence, b) political, religious political or social political movement, and c) the use of illegal structure. Traditional terrorism, as Pisano explains, together with neo-terrorism, coexist both as a threat and as a concrete aggression. Neo-terrorism is performed by dynamic and polymorphous schemes that can intertwine while preserving their methodological and operational autonomy at the same time. Pisano indicates ecologic terrorism, narco-terrorism, the NRBC, and cyber-terrorism as the most important.
Ecologic terrorism (the topic of our research) is based on lay and/or religious ideological ideas and from an organizational point of view is carried out alternatively by cellular organizations with no hierarchies and by binary structures that are cellular and propagandistic at the same time. Ecologic terrorism furthers its antagonism through several operative procedures: 1) obstructive human barriers (lock box), 2) machinery sabotage, 3) arson and explosive detonation, 4) legal instruments focused on reporting abuse by police, 5) assemblage and road blocks, 6) intrusion within military installations or scientific and university institutions, 7) wide use of misinformation through media, internet and magazines, and 8) instigation to tax evasion. The enemies or targets to strike are several in number as well: 1) national and supranational capitalism, 2) the state, which defends its interests and consolidates its power, 3) national and supranational military institutions, and 4) scientific and university laboratories.
In a nutshell, eco-terrorism presents two fundamental trends: animal (such as ALF, ARM or JD) and environmental (e.g. Earth First!). In conclusion, Pisano suggests that the dangers of eco-terrorism are linked to the potential strengthening of its organizational power, creation of operative or ideological ties with traditional terrorism, and the consolidation of its relations with the anti-globalization movement.
An American: “Why I Don’t Trust My Government, At All”
Would you trust your government if it were headed by a President who just now appointed to become the head of the CIA, the very same person who had headed the CIA’s interrogation of a 9/11 suspect whose interrogation consisted of 83 waterboardings (plus other tortures, which blinded his left eye), all in order to get him to say that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, so as to ‘justify’ invading Iraq?
Current U.S. President Donald Trump has appointed, to head the CIA, Gina Haspel, who, as a CIA official in Thailand, the Chief-of-Base there, or Thai “COB”, in 2002, had headed the interrogation of suspect Abu Zubaydeh, and kept using waterboardings and other means of torture against him until he would implicate Saddam Hussein. He told them what he thought they wanted to hear, but didn’t know that this was what they wanted the most to hear. As Raymond Bonner described it at propublica on 22 February 2017:chief of base and another senior counterterrorism official on scene had the sole authority power to halt the questioning.
She never did so, records show, watching as Zubaydah vomited, passed out and urinated on himself while shackled. During one waterboarding session, Zubaydah lost consciousness and bubbles began gurgling from his mouth. … At one point, Haspel spoke directly with Zubaydah, accusing him of faking symptoms of physical distress and psychological breakdown. …
The CIA officials in Thailand understood that the methods they were using could kill Zubaydah and said that should that happen, they would cremate his body. If he survived questioning, Haspel sought assurances that “the subject will remain in isolation and incommunicado for the remainder of his life.”
So far, that promise has been kept. Zubaydah is currently incarcerated at Guantanamo. His lawyers filed a court action in 2008 seeking his release, but the federal judges overseeing the case have failed to issue any substantive rulings [after now 16 years]. …
[Ultimately,] the source on whom the CIA had based its assessment that Zubaydah was number three or four in the al-Qaida organization had recanted his testimony, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Torture released in 2014. The agency would ultimately conclude that Zubaydah was not even a member of al-Qaeda.
So, a man who wasn’t even in Al Qaeda, is being hidden from the public because the U.S. Government 17 years ago captured him in Pakistan and tried to get him to say that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 but they didn’t get the false testimony they required from him, and so he’s still hidden at Guantanamo so as to continue still deceiving the American public (such as to support U.S. use of torture), and to continue keeping his case against the U.S. Government away from whatever (laughable) international-law bodies exist.
Buried in a December 2008 Vanity Fair article by David Rose is this: The tribunal president, a colonel whose name is redacted, asked him: “So I understand that during this treatment, you said things to make them stop and then those statements were actually untrue, is that correct?” Abu Zubaydah replied: “Yes.”
Some of those statements, say two senior intelligence analysts who worked on them at the time, concerned the issue that in the spring of 2002 interested the Bush administration more than almost any other — the supposed operational relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Given his true position in the jihadist hierarchy, Abu Zubaydah “would not have known [about] that [even] if it was true,” says Coleman. “But you can lead people down a course and make them say anything.”
Some of what he did say was leaked by the administration: for example, the claim that bin Laden and his ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi were working directly with Saddam Hussein to destabilize the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq. There was much more, says the analyst who worked at the Pentagon: “I first saw the reports soon after Abu Zubaydah’s capture. There was a lot of stuff about the nuts and bolts of al-Qaeda’s supposed relationship with the Iraqi Intelligence Service. The intelligence community was lapping this up, and so was the administration, obviously. Abu Zubaydah was saying Iraq and al-Qaeda had an operational relationship. It was everything the administration hoped it would be.”
Within the administration, Abu Zubaydah’s interrogation was “an important chapter,” the second analyst says: overall, his interrogation “product” was deemed to be more significant than the claims made by Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, another al-Qaeda captive, who in early 2002 was tortured in Egypt at the C.I.A.’s behest. After all, Abu Zubaydah was being interviewed by Americans. Like the former Pentagon official, this official had no idea that Abu Zubaydah had been tortured.
“As soon as I learned that the reports had come from torture, once my anger had subsided I understood the damage it had done,” the Pentagon analyst says. “I was so angry, knowing that the higher-ups in the administration knew he was tortured, and that the information he was giving up was tainted by the torture, and that it became one reason to attack Iraq.”
As I documented in my “America’s News Is Heavily Censored”, George W. Bush knowingly lied on 7 September 2002 when he said that the IAEA had just issued a new report that Saddam Hussein was within six months of having a nuclear weapon. When the IAEA denied, several times, that there was any such new report, the press ignored it, and the public impression from the President’s lie remained unchallenged in the press.
Barack Obama was no better, and he continued almost all of the cover-ups and lies from his predecessor. This is not a partisan matter. It is a matter of a bipartisan dictatorship, which rules in Washington.
I give this here as only one of the large number of conclusive, rationally undeniable, reasons why it would be ludicrous to trust the U.S. Government.
Russia Says U.S. Trains Jihadists to Do Chemical Attacks Blamed Against Assad
On March 17th, Russia’s Minister of Defense (equivalent to America’s Secretary of Defense) announced, through Russian General Staff spokesman General...
From Radical Ecology to Ecoterrorism
Radical ecology The schools of thought of contemporary eco-terrorism are many, but those that use an antagonist theoretical-practical approach can...
Why At Least Two Nuclear Super-Powers Are Essential
My distinguished colleague at Strategic Culture Foundation, Federico Pieraccini, has recently argued that “nuclear-armed powers decrease the likelihood of a...
Ice Silk Road: From Dream to reality
Authors: Mahdi Torabi, Vahid Pourtajrishi The history of Silk Road backs to thousands years ago. The aim of creation of...
Entrepreneurs in unexpected places: How one Midwest city promotes diverse local innovation
In September of 2017, thousands of people from around the world congregated in an unlikely place: Wausau, Wisconsin. This diverse...
The World without Colonies – Dakhla without Potemkin Village
Last November marked forty two years since 350,000 Moroccans crossed into the Western Sahara as part of the staged manipulation...
What Results When U.S. Invades a Country
The U.S. Government certainly leads the world in invasions and coups. In recent years, it has invaded and occupied —...
Africa2 days ago
The Ethiopian Powder Keg Is a Regional Threat
Russia2 days ago
New American-Russian Conflict: A Confrontation beyond Cold War
Middle East1 day ago
Three Years of Saudi Heinous Crimes in Yemen
Africa1 day ago
The World without Colonies – Dakhla without Potemkin Village
Terrorism2 days ago
New ISIL called the MEK
South Asia2 days ago
India’s Military Spending and South Asian Security
East Asia16 hours ago
Ice Silk Road: From Dream to reality
Energy3 days ago
The Sustainable Energy Forum for East Africa 2018